\section{Overcoming the Barriers}
\label{sec:overcomingbarriers}

Until now we have showed that there are indeed barriers to a transition of the current Internet architecture to an ICN architecture. By means of our theoretical framework and our primary data, we have been able to outline the barriers to such a transition and discuss their characteristics. Now we will discuss to which extend we are able to say anything about the second sub-question: \textit{What can be done in order to overcome the barriers to a transition}. \bigskip

\noindent In sub-section \ref{subsec:dissum} we summarized the barriers to a transition to ICN. Our reflections regarding our second sub-question are arranged in such manner that we can cover all the various relevant topics.

\subsection{Alignment of Institutions}

In subsection \ref{subsec:institutionaldesign} we depicted that the current circumstances disallows a proper institutional design that can support an ICN transition. Is seems very relevant for us to assess whether we are at all able to propose ways to enable proper institutional design. As described in the resarch philosophy, section \ref{sec:considerations}, we have gone through a learning process, where we have re-biased, got wiser, and arrived at a new standpoint. Our hope was that we in the end should be able to come up with suggestions for overcoming the barriers. This is what we are going to discuss now from an institutional design perspective. \bigskip

\noindent We found out that a more proper institutional design, which helps in coordinating and establishing pressure on the existing regime, can be constructed by ensuring more hierarchical governance structures within the Internet regime. This will increase the momentum of ICN as a niche-innovation by means of collective actions. But that brings us to the recursive question of what are the barriers to an establishment of more hierarchy on the Internet? Obviously that also goes directly against the initial non-governed, non-proprietary structure of the Internet, and so we argue that hierarchy is not a considerable way to overcome the barriers to transition. Still, if one sees the whole Internet as a public good, it might be reasonable to compare it to the control of other public goods such as drinking water and traffic infrastructure. As engineering students we are definitely not able to come up with specific suggestions of how to establish a pure hierarchical governance structure of the Internet as such - and if it even makes sense to consider - but our research supports the idea of having a 'sheriff' in Cybertown\footnote{Conclusions of the 2004 WSIS meeting, also presented in sub-section \ref{subsec:multiplat} by \cite{JOHNSON}}, who can control an ICN deployment trajectory. \bigskip

\noindent 

\subsection{Collective Switching Costs}
\subsubsection{Lowering Transaction Costs}
\subsubsection{Controlling Opportunism}

\subsection{Enabling a Transition Pathway}

\subsection{Reproduction Processes of the Internet}

\subsection{Creation of Business Incentives}

